Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Legal fee paid to Jonathan Lock

Monday, October 15, 2007

Legal fee paid to Jonathan Lock

Dear Mr Tan

NTUC Income paid $40,000 to Jonathan Lock to cover his legal expenses with his lawyer. Mr Lock has now settled with his lawyer for a "nominal" fee of $5,000. Does this mean that Mr Lock can keep the $35,000?

REPLY:

I do not know the condition on which the payment of $40,000 was made. From what I read in the newspapers, I guess Mr Lock is entitled to keep the remaining $35,000. The whole episode turns out to be financially to his advantage. However, he did suffer a lot of anguish during this period.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Video+News/Singapore/STIVodcast_2763.html?playid=2763&type=Top10

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20071013/tap-305487-231650b.html

10 comments:

Anonymous said...: Is this an image damage control stunt by Income? Can money buy love from the public? But who pays for it? The policyholders? Expect a reduced bonus
this year if it is not from his pocket.; October 15, 2007 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Lump the $40K with revosave marketing cost.; October 15, 2007 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: It seems that ntuc is worse off, having spent $80,000.

Their lawyer and Jonathan Lock is laughing all the way to the bank.

What about the poor policyholders who have to bear this out of their bonus???

Quite irresponsible of the management.; October 15, 2007 3:16 PM
Thomas Phua's Blog said...: I doubt Ntuc Income gave Lock the $40,000.

That was on condition that he drop the appeal,but he went ahead with appeal to high court and got vindicated, thus I do not think Income gave him the $40,000.; October 15, 2007 11:24 PM
Thomas Phua's Blog said...: what has this $40k got to do with revosave.

This anonymous 2:52PM writer is obviously some one against Ntuc Income hitting at every opportunity he can. A competitor agent perhaps, using this Blog to hit at his whimps and fancy.

Even without link, he fires the shot like this.

What has revosave got to do with this?; October 15, 2007 11:29 PM
Anonymous said...: And the management continues to have a "take it or leave it" attitude. So, to cancel or not to cancel my policies, that is the question. To cancel, I lose. Not to cancel, I continue to lose. So how?; October 16, 2007 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: You should cancel it and stop the losses, then sue the company through CASE. Under the amended Consumer Protection Act, insurance products come under it.; October 18, 2007 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: What has revosave got to do with Jonathan Lock saga?It has plenty.
First revosave appeals to the whimps and fancy of customers and not needs.
It is robbing the unwary customers of their hard earned money. Poor customers have no fanciful needs like sunny days but only rainy days if they get themselves locked up long years.Jonathna was locked in long legal tussle and his time and resources got depleted. Income wasted a lot of policyholders' money by wasting on legal suits which were unnecessary.Money paid and wasted could have gone to paying bonuses to policyholders.And both revosave and the jonathan saga
are both draining the policyholders' hard earned money.; October 18, 2007 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan, you were the CEO of Income when this matter arose. Did you give the green light for Income to proceed with the law suits? If yes, care to share why?; October 18, 2007 10:13 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Here is my reply to the posting of 10:13 PM

This case never came to my attention.

The process during my time was:

1. If a case become difficult, the case manager should bring it to the attention of the claim committee, chaired by a general manager.

2. The claims committee can refer the matter to the CEO, if this was felt to be necessary.

To my knowledge, during my time, the case never went to the claims committee. It was a "lapse of internal process".; October 18, 2007 11:19 PM